Bill C-34 · The Safe Social Media Act · Tabled June 10, 2026
Protecting kids online shouldn't mean ID checks for everyone
On June 10, 2026, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act. Much of it is genuinely good: it would finally require platforms to take responsibility for the harms their products cause. But buried in the same bill are provisions that would make proving your age — and, in practice, your identity — a condition of using the Canadian internet, and that would ban every Canadian under 16 from holding a social media account on platforms the cabinet chooses.
We support the duty of care. We oppose the age-verification mandates and the under-16 ban. Section 2(b) of the Charter protects freedom of expression for everyone — including teenagers, and including you.
Three problems, in the bill's own words
1. Age checks for every user
To keep under-16s off designated platforms, s. 27(1) of the Digital Safety Act requires operators to apply "age-verification or age-estimation measures" to everyone who opens an account — adults included. s. 22(1) extends age checks to any regulated service an operator has "reasonable grounds to suspect" provides access to pornographic content — wording broad enough to capture general-purpose platforms.
2. A ban decided by cabinet, not Parliament
The under-16 ban applies only to services "specified by regulations made by the Governor in Council" s. 27(4)–(5). Which platforms, what counts as "adequate" verification, and dozens of other choices — independent analysis counts roughly 50 decision points — are left to future cabinet regulations and a Digital Safety Commission that does not yet exist.
3. A door open to mandated scanning
The bill promises that operators need not "proactively search" users' content s. 12(1) — and then, in the next breath, allows regulations to require "technological means to prevent content … from being uploaded" s. 12(2). Today that power is limited to child sexual abuse material. The infrastructure it normalizes is not limited at all.
What the bill gets right
Credibility requires honesty, so let's be clear about what we are not fighting:
- The duty to act responsibly — risk assessment, mitigation measures, blocking and flagging tools, synthetic-content labels ss. 31–40. This is the duty-of-care model experts asked for.
- Rapid removal of child sexual abuse material and non-consensual intimate images, with a victim complaint process ss. 43–47, 68.
- Transparency: public digital safety plans and researcher access to platform data ss. 42, 59–61.
- Real limits: private messaging is excluded s. 11; age-check data must be destroyed after use ss. 22(2), 27(2); no one can be imprisoned under the Act s. 111.
Parliament should pass those parts. Our demand is surgical: keep the duty of care, remove the age mandates. The two are separable — the bill's own structure proves it.
Why this matters beyond our borders
In June 2025, during its war with Israel, Iran cut its people off from the internet — a near-total blackout its communications ministry described as a temporary measure required by "special conditions," framed as protecting citizens. It did the opposite: human rights monitors documented that the blackout cut civilians off from strike warnings, emergency services and loved ones. Canada, a founding member of the Freedom Online Coalition, joined its partners in condemning Iran's shutdowns and calling for access to be restored.
To be precise — and we insist on being precise — Bill C-34 is not an internet shutdown, and Canada is not Iran. A democracy debating a bill in public, subject to a free press and an independent judiciary, is doing exactly what Iran's government does not. But the principle Canada defended abroad is the right one: "safety" is the justification every government reaches for when it restricts access to communication. A rules-respecting state proves its principles by accepting them at home, where they are inconvenient — not only abroad, where they are free.
Five months before this bill was tabled, Prime Minister Carney stood at Davos and told the world that Canada remains "principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, and respect for human rights" — and that our "public square is loud, diverse, and free." We agree. A public square with an ID check at the door is none of those things.
You're in good company
Within a day of the bill's tabling, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association warned that "a blank check for federal power is the wrong answer to a real problem," and that mandatory age verification "is highly invasive" and creates "disproportionate challenges for marginalized communities." OpenMedia called on MPs to keep the duty of care and strip out the ID mandates: "Canadians have shown again and again we don't believe you should have to show your face or upload ID to live an ordinary online life."
They join the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Signal Foundation, Amnesty International and Access Now, who have opposed age-verification mandates and scanning mandates in every jurisdiction where they have appeared — because the technology fails the same way everywhere.
Australia ran this experiment. The results are in.
Australia's under-16 ban — the model for C-34's — took effect on December 10, 2025. Within months, a survey by the Molly Rose Foundation found that more than 60% of teens who had social media accounts before the ban still had access. Teenagers defeat face-scans with printed mesh masks and their parents' IDs; the determined migrate to VPNs and to smaller, less moderated corners of the internet. Meanwhile every Australian adult who stayed pays the toll: face scans or identity documents to use ordinary services.
Amnesty International called the Australian ban "an ineffective quick fix" — and Australia's own Human Rights Commission warned that keeping kids safe "shouldn't mean a loss of privacy for everyone." That is the deal C-34 now offers Canadians: the privacy cost is certain, and the safety benefit is not.
The window is now
C-34 has only had first reading. Second reading — the vote on the bill's principle — is where MPs can force amendments. Committees listen hardest when constituents write early. It takes five minutes, and we've drafted the letter for you (edit it freely; letters in your own words count for more).